God Is Imaginary: Examine Jesus' Miracles (Proof #14) | Page 4 | Religion Spirituality | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
God Is Imaginary: Examine Jesus' Miracles (Proof #14)
February 21, 2011
6:13 pm
Avatar
event_horizon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1630
Member Since:
April 22, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: See how you phrased that? It really shows your closed-mindedness.

I could just as easily call you closed-minded for thinking there's no alternative to the "God" you believe in.

"at1with0" wrote: There are primitive definitions of God out there but my definition is that whatever God is it must be all-encompassing. The premise I hypothesize is that two all-encompassing "things" are congruent. Reality is all-encompassing, so God is congruent to Reality.

That's the pantheist view, not your "definition" or "premise".

"at1with0" wrote: Like I said, all perceptions are evidence that God exists.

Existence is not proof that "God" exists. That's a rather primitive way of looking at it.

Do you see "God" in man-made structures as well?

Do you see "God" in the mirror? :shifty:

horizon

 

The mixed breed three-eyed half grey alien half cyclops mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.

February 21, 2011
7:01 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"event_horizon" wrote: [quote="at1with0"]See how you phrased that? It really shows your closed-mindedness.

I could just as easily call you closed-minded for thinking there's no alternative to the "God" you believe in.

Oh but you don't know that I think there's no alternative. As the recent past indicates, I am quite open to new possibilities.

"at1with0" wrote: There are primitive definitions of God out there but my definition is that whatever God is it must be all-encompassing. The premise I hypothesize is that two all-encompassing "things" are congruent. Reality is all-encompassing, so God is congruent to Reality.

That's the pantheist view, not your "definition" or "premise".

I didn't mean to pretend that it was "my" definition or premise. But yes, first and foremost I am a pantheist. Technically, I would say I'm a pantheist for Jesus which is different from a Christian.

"at1with0" wrote: Like I said, all perceptions are evidence that God exists.

Existence is not proof that "God" exists. That's a rather primitive way of looking at it.

Do you see "God" in man-made structures as well?

Do you see "God" in the mirror? :shifty:

But it is. Believing that God, whatever it is, must be all-encompassing may be primitive or it may not but it is the most sound, most unassuming definition I've ever come across. Elegant, even.

I see reality in man-made structures and I see reality in the mirror. Since God is congruent to reality, yes and yes and you do as well.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 22, 2011
2:11 am
Avatar
event_horizon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1630
Member Since:
April 22, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: Oh but you don't know that I think there's no alternative. As the recent past indicates, I am quite open to new possibilities.

You've said it yourself...you see the evidence all around you. If the "evidence" is already there for you (as to which sort of "God" exists), then how can you change your mind?...or stay open to alternative possibilities?

You're not making sense.

"at1with0" wrote: Technically, I would say I'm a pantheist for Jesus which is different from a Christian.

Jesus is a straw god. I thought you didn't believe in a straw god.

"at1with0" wrote: But it is. Believing that God, whatever it is, must be all-encompassing may be primitive or it may not but it is the most sound, most unassuming definition I've ever come across. Elegant, even.

An "all-encompassing God" is the same type of god believed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Their "God" exists everywhere. The Pantheistic "God" is the same, minus all the religious baggage.

It's a primitive way of imagining "God", and is far from "elegant".

"at1with0" wrote: I see reality in man-made structures and I see reality in the mirror. Since God is congruent to reality, yes and yes and you do as well.

No and no and no I do not.

horizon

 

The mixed breed three-eyed half grey alien half cyclops mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.

February 22, 2011
2:58 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"event_horizon" wrote: [quote="at1with0"]Oh but you don't know that I think there's no alternative. As the recent past indicates, I am quite open to new possibilities.

You've said it yourself...you see the evidence all around you. If the "evidence" is already there for you (as to which sort of "God" exists), then how can you change your mind?...or stay open to alternative possibilities?

You're not making sense.

That God exists is just a basic fact. What I can change my mind about is what its nature exactly is. Hell, if I had good reason to, I could change my mind about God entirely. I'm free enough to do that, unlike you.

"at1with0" wrote: Technically, I would say I'm a pantheist for Jesus which is different from a Christian.

Jesus is a straw god. I thought you didn't believe in a straw god.

I don't think of Jesus as a god at all. Maybe he is to me as a shepherd is to his flock, but still I wouldn't call that shepherd a god.

"at1with0" wrote: But it is. Believing that God, whatever it is, must be all-encompassing may be primitive or it may not but it is the most sound, most unassuming definition I've ever come across. Elegant, even.

An "all-encompassing God" is the same type of god believed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Their "God" exists everywhere. The Pantheistic "God" is the same, minus all the religious baggage.

Right.
It's pretty convenient of you to reject every possible definition of God. If you're going to do that, it is a demonstration of closed-mindedness.

It's a primitive way of imagining "God", and is far from "elegant".

It's elementary and perhaps primitive but not incorrect. It actually is quite elegant because it uses minimally-many assumptions, the one assumption being that whatever God is, it is all-encompassing. Add to that and you rapidly run into the problem of arguing against a straw god which is, of course, easy.

"at1with0" wrote: I see reality in man-made structures and I see reality in the mirror. Since God is congruent to reality, yes and yes and you do as well.

No and no and no I do not.

You don't see reality in man-made structures? Do you think man-made structures are hallucinations? Do you think that what you're looking at in a mirror isn't real?
We probably will never find any common ground if you fail to understand the basics.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 22, 2011
4:36 am
Avatar
sandra
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3858
Member Since:
December 4, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So uh does anyone know anything around here? :pray:

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great
astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”
“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s
memory works both ways.”
— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

February 22, 2011
6:46 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I know that I don't need to see or hear about someone performing magic tricks or CPR and what not in order to believe in Christ. :snooty:

"it is easy to grow crazy"

February 22, 2011
6:52 pm
Avatar
event_horizon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1630
Member Since:
April 22, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: [quote="event_horizon"][quote="at1with0"]Oh but you don't know that I think there's no alternative. As the recent past indicates, I am quite open to new possibilities.

You've said it yourself...you see the evidence all around you. If the "evidence" is already there for you (as to which sort of "God" exists), then how can you change your mind?...or stay open to alternative possibilities?

You're not making sense.

That God exists is just a basic fact. What I can change my mind about is what its nature exactly is. Hell, if I had good reason to, I could change my mind about God entirely. I'm free enough to do that, unlike you.

"at1with0" wrote: Technically, I would say I'm a pantheist for Jesus which is different from a Christian.

Jesus is a straw god. I thought you didn't believe in a straw god.

I don't think of Jesus as a god at all. Maybe he is to me as a shepherd is to his flock, but still I wouldn't call that shepherd a god.

"at1with0" wrote: But it is. Believing that God, whatever it is, must be all-encompassing may be primitive or it may not but it is the most sound, most unassuming definition I've ever come across. Elegant, even.

An "all-encompassing God" is the same type of god believed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Their "God" exists everywhere. The Pantheistic "God" is the same, minus all the religious baggage.

Right.
It's pretty convenient of you to reject every possible definition of God. If you're going to do that, it is a demonstration of closed-mindedness.

It's a primitive way of imagining "God", and is far from "elegant".

It's elementary and perhaps primitive but not incorrect. It actually is quite elegant because it uses minimally-many assumptions, the one assumption being that whatever God is, it is all-encompassing. Add to that and you rapidly run into the problem of arguing against a straw god which is, of course, easy.

Either you believe in "God" or you don't. Just because you have the option to imagine whether your imaginary friend is a unicorn or a fairy, doesn't make you any more open or closed minded.

I'm open-minded about a lot of things (aliens and parallel universes just to name a couple), but "God" isn't one of them. I could just as easily call you closed-minded for believing the universe can't exist without "God".

If there's anyone truly open-minded about this particular subject, it's the agnostic.

With that being said, you seem utterly confused about what you think "God" is, or its nature. To top it off, you invoke Jesus into it (first time I've ever heard that from you), as if to simply please or gain approval of others on this board.

It's as if you're trying to create your own "God"/religion/cult, but you stumble through your ideas like a homeless drunkard into a dead-end alley.

"at1with0" wrote: [quote="event_horizon"][quote="at1with0"]I see reality in man-made structures and I see reality in the mirror. Since God is congruent to reality, yes and yes and you do as well.

No and no and no I do not.

You don't see reality in man-made structures? Do you think man-made structures are hallucinations? Do you think that what you're looking at in a mirror isn't real?

You said that "God" is "congruent" (your favorite genius word) to reality, but you also said reality is in man-made structures and in mirrors, as if I should see "God" in those as well. That's how I understood it.

"at1with0" wrote: We probably will never find any common ground if you fail to understand the basics.

Unlike you, I'm not here to seek common ground with anyone. I'm here to express my views and opinions, and if I happen to reach a common ground, that's just a bonus.

horizon

 

The mixed breed three-eyed half grey alien half cyclops mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.

February 22, 2011
6:53 pm
Avatar
event_horizon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1630
Member Since:
April 22, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"sandra" wrote: So uh does anyone know anything around here? :pray:

I know my ABCs! 😛

Do you know what the original topic is about? Care to indulge us with your "infinite wisdom" about it?

horizon

 

The mixed breed three-eyed half grey alien half cyclops mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.

February 23, 2011
8:06 pm
Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10286
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How many of them should we read, when proof 1-13 were all trash, proof 14 is going to be any different? And if you didn't convince anyone by #49, do you think #50 will? Maybe you should start working on proof 51-100, or copy it from someone else.

The bonus is you have not converted anyone! :thumbup:

February 24, 2011
5:09 am
Avatar
event_horizon
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1630
Member Since:
April 22, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm not here to convert anyone; just to get people to realize the errors in their religion.

You're the only one in here that constantly whines about the proofs. :boohoo:

horizon

 

The mixed breed three-eyed half grey alien half cyclops mutant from a galaxy so far away you can't even get there if you folded space.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
40 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10286

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24726

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 9016

Posts: 124215

Newest Members:

JAMES, Nan, Me, Jessica Branch, Rip Crain, Jessica S, Jennifer Thomas, Pyrid, stunning88, Jim

Administrators: John Greenewald: 636, blackvault: 1776